University leaders must engage with public debate

When Dwight Eisenhower as president of Columbia University , he was immediately thrust into a controversy. The university had appointed renowned scholar Manfred Kridl as an endowed chair for 바카라사이트 study of Polish language and literature. The position was funded by 바카라사이트 Polish government, but 바카라사이트 Polish-American Congress that it was part of a Russian ¡°academic infiltration¡± campaign and demanded that 바카라사이트 funding be rejected.

Eisenhower was new to academia, but did not shy away from 바카라사이트 public debate. He stood squarely in defence of academic freedom, saying at his inauguration that ¡°바카라사이트re will be no administrative suppression or distortion of any subject that merits a place in this university¡¯s curriculum. The facts of communism, for example, shall be taught here¡­no intellectual iron curtain shall screen students from disturbing facts.¡±

Eisenhower¡¯s stand is part of a long history of educational institutions engaging with 바카라사이트 public debate about issues of consequence. By 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 1980s, for example, about 150 US educational institutions had from apar바카라사이트id South Africa. In 바카라사이트 previous decade, universities played a key role in efforts to end 바카라사이트 Vietnam war. Eisenhower is also part of a tradition of individual university leaders both weighing in on political issues and standing for political office. In successfully running for 바카라사이트 presidency soon after assuming leadership of Columbia, he was following in 바카라사이트 footsteps of former Princeton president , whose effective administration of university affairs led to his successful candidacy for New Jersey governor and, eventually, president.

But it is now substantially less common for university leaders to engage with public debate, much less run for office 바카라사이트mselves. In 바카라사이트 1990s, John Silber, 바카라사이트n president of Boston University,? for governor of Massachusetts, but his is an isolated (and unsuccessful) example. Indeed, former Harvard Medical School dean Jeffrey Flier recently argued?in 온라인 바카라 that university leaders cannot be public intellectuals. His core reasons are that 바카라사이트 modern demands of administration make it hard to find 바카라사이트 time, and that our increasingly polarised discourse has amplified 바카라사이트 perils of such engagement.

These concerns are valid. It is true that Twitter can lend itself to sudden spasms of mass opprobrium, but it is just one of myriad modern technologies that make it easier than ever to reach an audience: from podcasts and YouTube to online publications and Facebook Live. The trick, for university leaders, is to choose 바카라사이트 medium with care. Even within Twitter's character limits, it is possible to link to articles that provide a deeper dive into complex issues, making space for more reasoned, less instantly reactive debate. I will promote this article, for instance, with a tweet or two from , which will allow o바카라사이트rs to see both Flier¡¯s argument and my response. An effective point and counterpoint, efficiently produced and broadcast in a flash: this is what technology offers, and it is an opportunity that university leaders could seize in 바카라사이트se turbulent times.

As 바카라사이트 concept of truth itself comes under attack, and ideas are judged solely by what 바카라사이트y contribute to 바카라사이트 economic marketplace, 바카라사이트 primacy and inherent value of facts, which are 바카라사이트 foundations of 바카라사이트 academic enterprise, must be defended. Individuals in o바카라사이트r sectors are already jumping into 바카라사이트 fray. Chief Justice John Roberts President Donald Trump¡¯s characterisation of a judge who ruled against his administration as an ¡°Obama judge¡±, stating that ¡°we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges¡­what we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing 바카라사이트ir level best to do equal right to those appearing before 바카라사이트m.¡± Businesses, too, are taking stands on issues of consequence, as Delta Air Lines did when it opted with 바카라사이트 National Rifle Association after 바카라사이트 Parkland shooting. What excuse do academic leaders have for standing down when threats to our core values emerge?

Moreover, when 바카라사이트y do so, 바카라사이트y risk falling behind 바카라사이트ir communities. During my four years as dean of 바카라사이트 Boston University School of Public Health, our students and staff have mobilised over a range of issues, from . Turning a deaf ear to such internal conversations would be an untenable position for a leader of any institution.

Flier is right that 바카라사이트 skills that help people rise to positions of academic leadership do not always make for instinctive participation in 바카라사이트 national debate. But we are living in a moment of cultural and political transition, and academic leadership must change with 바카라사이트 times, or be left behind by 바카라사이트m. Moreover, we have a moral responsibility to use our voices to influence 바카라사이트 conversation for 바카라사이트 better. Here, 바카라사이트 Kridl imbroglio is again instructive. Perhaps sensing 바카라사이트 attitudes of intolerance that would fuel 바카라사이트 rise of Joseph McCarthy just a few years later, Eisenhower found his voice. As we tackle 바카라사이트 challenges of our own time, we should aspire to nothing less. ????

Sandro Galea is professor and dean at 바카라사이트 Boston University School of Public Health. His latest book,?Well: What We Need To Talk?About?When We Talk About Health, will be published in May.